Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store media comprising image files, sound files, video files, text files, and an executable editor module;
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to execute the editor module to:
identify a plurality of elements corresponding to a first interactive story content, the plurality of elements comprising one or more of:
one or more media elements,
one or more timing elements,
one or more branch elements, and
one or more interaction elements;
combine the plurality of elements into a story flow that directly or indirectly relates each of the plurality of elements to each of the other of the plurality of elements; and
generate an executable first interactive story file based on the plurality of elements and the story flow.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because the invention could be performed merely mentally, such as by looking thru various storyline aspects and combining them to tell a story.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A non-transitory CRM and processor is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Storing of media including various files is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The non-transitory CRM and processor does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The storing of media comprising various files is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-8, 10-16 and 18-19 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunting (US 20150375115).
In claims 1, 9, 17, and 18 Bunting discloses
A non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store media comprising image files, sound files, video files, text files, and an executable editor module (figure 1 #110, 106, figure 8 #806, 808, paragraph 73)
At least one processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and configured to execute the editor module to: (figure 1 #112)
Identify a plurality of elements corresponding to a first interactive story content, the plurality of elements comprising one or more of: one or more media elements, one or more timing elements, one or more branch elements, and one or more interaction elements, (It is noted by examiner that this is a Markush group, and thus only 1 of these elements needs to be disclosed by the prior art. paragraph 17 discloses branching elements, although these are also interaction elements and timing elements, as the elements are in a particular order)
Combine the plurality of elements into a story flow that directly or indirectly relates each of the plurality of elements to each of the other of the plurality of elements and (see figure 2 which shows how the branching occurs, see also paragraph 29)
Generate an executable first interactive story file based on the plurality of elements and the story flow (paragraphs 71-73, the generation includes generating information such as sounds and images, paragraph 37 discloses generating the segments dynamically)
In claim 17 as well as 7 and 15, Bunting further discloses combine a first portion of the plurality of elements into a first moment, combine a second portion of the plurality of elements into a second moment, and defining an ordered sequence between the first moment and the second moment in the interactive story (figure 2 shows moments such as A and B1 which is a combination of audio and video and images as per paragraph 29 and 17)
In claims 2 and 10, Bunting discloses the one or more media elements comprises one or more text files, image files, video files, and sound files (As this is a Markush group, only 1 of the elements needs to be disclosed by the prior art. Paragraph 17 discloses image, video, and sound files)
In claims 3 and 11, Bunting discloses a timing element defines a duration of at least one of the plurality of elements corresponding to the first interactive story (it is noted by examiner that further defining the timing element does not remove the element from the Markush group, thus simply teaching any of the other elements, such as a branching element, would continue to teach the invention as claimed. Paragraph 28 discloses the time take to present the story is preset)
In claims 4 and 12, Bunting discloses a branch element defines an ordered relationship between two or more of the plurality of elements corresponding to the first interactive story (it is noted by examiner that further defining the timing element does not remove the element from the Markush group, thus simply teaching any of the other elements, such as a timing element, would continue to teach the invention as claimed. Figure 2 shows how branching occurs, as well as paragraph 29. These elements are in an ordered relationship)
In claims 5 and 13, Bunting discloses a first branch element defines at least two optional second elements that sequentially follow a first element in the first interactive story (it is noted by examiner that further defining the timing element does not remove the element from the Markush group, thus simply teaching any of the other elements, such as a branching element, would continue to teach the invention as claimed. Figure 2 shows branching including optional second elements such as B1 and B2 following element A. See further paragraph 29)
In claims 6 and 14, Bunting discloses an interaction element defines a user input or an absence of a user input corresponding to the first interactive story (paragraph 28 discloses sensed outcomes being used to determine the branching outcome)
In claims 8, 16, and 19 Bunting discloses provide the interactive story file to a playback station via a data communication network (paragraph 102 discloses that a server, and via the internet as per paragraph 62, and the playback station is described as a presentation device of fig 1 #115, such as a display or speaker as per paragraph 61)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is not an abstract idea under step 2A prong one because steps have been added which a human cannot practically perform, however the underlined abstract idea from the previous claimset is still within the claims, and no argument appears to be made as to these steps not being abstract.
Applicant argues that the claim set requires a technological improvement and includes a multimedia toolset that operates on a rich variety of media using an extended film language and common data infrastructure in combination with a multiplatform player to allow for seamless development and production, however nothing within the claims require this, and even if it were to include it, a human may rely upon a breadth of media knowledge to create a story. Applicant’s second argument is very similar, arguing another technical feature that appears to have not been claimed, and to the degree it is, has been found to be abstract. Applicant further argues that creating an executable file overcomes step 2A prong 2, however this was found to be extra solutionary activity and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Step2B has similar arguments to step 2A prong 2.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Bunting does not disclose an executable editor module. It is noted by examiner that an “executable module” is just a human abstraction/labeling of the portion of programming that allows for the particular step (in this case editing) to be performed by the processor, A processor executing a step would mean it has an associated editor module, and would not need to be specifically set aside within the prior art to teach this limitation. In the case of Bunting, this specific piece of software is conveniently labeled as an interactive story module 106, most particularly the outcome selection engine 806, and presentation engine 808, as this portion of the software performs the steps described within the claims.
Applicant further argues that a story “file” has not been generated, however paragraph 37 states that the segments may be dynamically generated, paragraph 73 specifically discloses generation of sounds and images. With respect to the word “file”, this is just the digital object of stored data, so creation of data is creation of a file.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights